(05-03-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

How are following *not* based on victimhood:

Quote:Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I will back away from the implication or statement of 'all'. How about a real fing healthy proportion? Does that make you feel better?

There is a big difference between victimhood and fairness.

Would you say that prohibition being repealed was based on victimhood?

They are part and parcel of the same issue. Unfairness requires a victim. A victim requires an act of unfairness.

Quote: Victim noun
1 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
the schools are victims of the social system
: such as one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attacks
b : one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim

The other alternative definitions tend towards the 'unfortunate happenstance' injury or destruction. But again, the ideal of an unfortunate happenstance also has within it the 'how unfair' implication.

So no, there really isnt such a huge difference between 'victimhood' and 'unfairness'.

As for prohibition being repealed, I am unaware that any of the Gang of 22 entertains any specific position on that.